Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Multidisciplinary analysis of invasive meningococcal disease as a framework for continuous quality and safety improvement in regional Australia
  1. Kathryn A Taylor1,
  2. David N Durrheim1,2,
  3. Tony Merritt1,
  4. Peter Massey1,
  5. John Ferguson3,
  6. Nick Ryan2,
  7. Carolyn Hullick2,4
  1. 1Population Health Unit, Hunter New England Local Health District, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Pathology North, Hunter New England Local Health District, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4Clinical Governance Unit, Hunter New England Local Health District, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kathryn A Taylor; kathryn.taylor1{at}health.nsw.gov.au

Abstract

Background System factors in a regional Australian health district contributed to avoidable care deviations from invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) management guidelines. Traditional root cause analysis (RCA) is not well-suited to IMD, focusing on individual cases rather than system improvements. As IMD requires complex care across healthcare silos, it presents an opportunity to explore and address system-based patient safety issues.

Context Baseline assessment of IMD cases (2005–2006) identified inadequate triage, lack of senior clinician review, inconsistent vital sign recording and laboratory delays as common issues, resulting in antibiotic administration delays and inappropriate or premature discharge.

Methods Clinical governance, in partnership with clinical and public health services, established a multidisciplinary Meningococcal Reference Group (MRG) to routinely review management of all IMD cases. The MRG comprised representatives from primary care, acute care, public health, laboratory medicine and clinical governance. Baseline data were compared with two subsequent evaluation points (2011–2012 and 2013–2015).

Interventions Phase I involved multidisciplinary process mapping and development of a standardised audit tool from national IMD management guidelines. Phase II involved formalisation of group processes and advocacy for operational change. Phase III focused on dissemination of findings to clinicians and managers.

Results Greatest care improvements were observed in the final evaluation. Median antibiotic delay decreased from 72 to 42 min and proportion of cases triaged appropriately improved from 38% to 75% between 2013 and 2015. Increasing fatal outcomes were attributed to the emergence of more virulent meningococcal serotypes.

Conclusions The MRG was a key mechanism for identifying system gaps, advocating for change and enhancing communication and coordination across services. Employing IMD case review as a focus for district-level process reflection presents an innovative patient safety approach, combining the strengths of prospective hazard analysis with more traditional RCA methodologies.

  • audit and feedback
  • process mapping
  • quality improvement
  • root cause analysis
  • governance

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors KAT designed and conducted the evaluation, cleaned and analysed the data and drafted and revised the paper. CH, DND and TM initiated the project, monitored data collection and drafted and revised the paper. JF, NR and PM revised the draft paper.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.